4 ms·

A top performing smart phone "camera" is really just the algorithm that creates a psychologically appealing composition. Note that AI is not being used to (sim

A top performing smart phone "camera" is really just the algorithm that creates a psychologically appealing composition. Note that AI is not being used to (simply) mimic a better sensor and lens, there is all sorts of stuff going on in the algorithms that a photographer would do in photoshop or in the dark room. The problem is, there is a specific aesthetic being targeted, and this removes some of the artistry from photography. I think there is a fundamental difference between a) the camera capturing multiple depths of field, focal points, etc., and then allowing the user to make the final decision in post production and b) the camera computationally simulating lens effects and lighting effects in the way that snapchat filters widen eyes and add animal ears. Cameras are supposed to capture reality, not create a postcard-like view of whatever was in range or generate a flattering selfie. These reviews should not be called camera reviews, they should be called "image algorithm reviews". What's next, phones whose "microphones" make our voices sound more masculine or flirtatious?

notheguyouthink 9y ago
To a degree I do sort of like it though. Personally, I don't try to take artistic photos with my phone. To me, my phone offers an in-the-moment photo, not something I want to flex my artistic muscle with. For that, I would.. well, flex my artistic muscle. I would use my artistic knowledge and or tools (what little of both I have lol) like lenses, DSLRs, etc - to capture/create what I'm aiming for. I understand that's not the same for everyone - but I enjoy the idea of my phone making the "pop music" of digital photography. Hell, I can't even zoom in without compromising quality. I just use it to document.
jbob2000 9y ago
I am really afraid of the direction "camera algorithms" are going. My partner, bless her to death, prefers to take pictures on Snapchat now instead of any other app. Mainly because the filters there make your nose smaller, eyes bigger, and alter some of the other facial dimensions to make you look prettier. We are going to end up in some weird future where everyone looks beautiful digitally, but, uhh, "normal" in reality.
- grandalf 9y ago
  > We are going to end up in some weird future I worry about that too. It may also end up being a future where we are no longer fooled by fake effects and they start to feel inauthentic. Chances are when plastic were new, people remarked at how similar chrome-painted plastic was to actual metal. These days we can easily tell them apart.
- plussed_reader 9y ago
  MySpace angles were a thing, glamour shots are still a thing, I believe. Glamour Shots - the Analog algorithms of beauty.
jp555 9y ago
"Cameras are supposed to capture reality" This seems like an ironic fantasy to me, because I don't think there is such a thing as an objective reality. Human vision is not objective in the slightest. The objective reality we think we see is actually a fiction made up in real-time by the brain (https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/what-colour-are-the-strawberries-in-this-picture-no-the-answer-is-not-red-1664755 https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/what-colour-are-the-strawberrie...).
- grandalf 9y ago
  Sure I can use a tiny fish-eye lens and some algorithms to create something that looks good, but if the goal is to start with an accurate representation of reality, then the algorithm does not necessarily help. Some of the landscape photos and portraits shown are difficult shots that professionals can achieve after understanding lighting. Using a filter to simulate this is fine. I don't judge it. I am not a professional photographer and use filters some of the time. The issue is calling it a review of a "camera" when it is really a review of filters. Debating over which company's fake bokeh is better is like debating whose animated kitten ear filter is more lifelike.
jmull 9y ago
> Cameras are supposed to capture reality, not create a postcard-like view of whatever was in range or generate a flattering selfie I think that's exactly what many, many people want from their camera, and I don't see why it shouldn't be up to them.
- grandalf 9y ago
  OK so in the next release it might make human arms look more buff, teeth whiter, and faces friendlier-looking. Is this really a good thing?
  - ghaff 9y ago
    You mean like art directors do with Photoshop for pretty much every magazine with a celebrity on the cover :-)
  - Jemmeh 9y ago
    Haha my camera already does this. Filters! Also Meitu, and their other program Makeup Plus can do all kinds of crazy things with your pictures. The VR on them is really neat imo. The thing is people can usually tell if it's extreme enough. After all we see each other in person sometimes still. :)
  - jmull 9y ago
    Well, people have always manipulated how they look, through cosmetics, clothing, etc. This is just the latest technique. Whether this is a good thing or not isn't a new question. My answer is, it's a normal and OK thing. However (as before) it can be taken to extremes or used for fraud. Obviously, these aren't good things. It's new, too, so it will take some time for us to learn the limits of good taste and good judgement and for norms to develop.
sailfast 9y ago
You can still do this with your phone - these machine learning images are all controlled as a completely separate tab in the photo app. It's the consumer's choice to (easily) turn it off and on. In my own personal tests, I found that I could better capture totally backlit faces that would have made terrible photos with portrait mode and the outcomes were great. When your objective is to capture a fleeting moment in the best way possible, this is a great advance and I welcome it. If I want to shoot Sony Alpha SLR and edit the raws, I'll do that. But most of the time I just want to share what my family's doing with the rest of my family and this makes it really easy to do it well.
- grandalf 9y ago
  > separate tab in the photo app Where is this? Which OS? I believe the composition optimization is not something you can turn off. What's the difference between optimizing the landscape composition and modifying a composition of a face to make it look more friendly, or modifying a picture of arms to make them look more buff?

notheguyouthink 9y ago

To a degree I do sort of like it though. Personally, I don't try to take artistic photos with my phone. To me, my phone offers an in-the-moment photo, not something I want to flex my artistic muscle with. For that, I would.. well, flex my artistic muscle. I would use my artistic knowledge and or tools (what little of both I have lol) like lenses, DSLRs, etc - to capture/create what I'm aiming for. I understand that's not the same for everyone - but I enjoy the idea of my phone making the "pop music" of digital photography. Hell, I can't even zoom in without compromising quality. I just use it to document.

jbob2000 9y ago

I am really afraid of the direction "camera algorithms" are going. My partner, bless her to death, prefers to take pictures on Snapchat now instead of any other app. Mainly because the filters there make your nose smaller, eyes bigger, and alter some of the other facial dimensions to make you look prettier. We are going to end up in some weird future where everyone looks beautiful digitally, but, uhh, "normal" in reality.

grandalf 9y ago
> We are going to end up in some weird future I worry about that too. It may also end up being a future where we are no longer fooled by fake effects and they start to feel inauthentic. Chances are when plastic were new, people remarked at how similar chrome-painted plastic was to actual metal. These days we can easily tell them apart.
plussed_reader 9y ago
MySpace angles were a thing, glamour shots are still a thing, I believe. Glamour Shots - the Analog algorithms of beauty.

jp555 9y ago

"Cameras are supposed to capture reality" This seems like an ironic fantasy to me, because I don't think there is such a thing as an objective reality. Human vision is not objective in the slightest. The objective reality we think we see is actually a fiction made up in real-time by the brain (https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/what-colour-are-the-strawberries-in-this-picture-no-the-answer-is-not-red-1664755 https://www.ndtv.com/offbeat/what-colour-are-the-strawberrie...).

grandalf 9y ago
Sure I can use a tiny fish-eye lens and some algorithms to create something that looks good, but if the goal is to start with an accurate representation of reality, then the algorithm does not necessarily help. Some of the landscape photos and portraits shown are difficult shots that professionals can achieve after understanding lighting. Using a filter to simulate this is fine. I don't judge it. I am not a professional photographer and use filters some of the time. The issue is calling it a review of a "camera" when it is really a review of filters. Debating over which company's fake bokeh is better is like debating whose animated kitten ear filter is more lifelike.

jmull 9y ago

> Cameras are supposed to capture reality, not create a postcard-like view of whatever was in range or generate a flattering selfie I think that's exactly what many, many people want from their camera, and I don't see why it shouldn't be up to them.

grandalf 9y ago
OK so in the next release it might make human arms look more buff, teeth whiter, and faces friendlier-looking. Is this really a good thing?
- ghaff 9y ago
  You mean like art directors do with Photoshop for pretty much every magazine with a celebrity on the cover :-)
- Jemmeh 9y ago
  Haha my camera already does this. Filters! Also Meitu, and their other program Makeup Plus can do all kinds of crazy things with your pictures. The VR on them is really neat imo. The thing is people can usually tell if it's extreme enough. After all we see each other in person sometimes still. :)
- jmull 9y ago
  Well, people have always manipulated how they look, through cosmetics, clothing, etc. This is just the latest technique. Whether this is a good thing or not isn't a new question. My answer is, it's a normal and OK thing. However (as before) it can be taken to extremes or used for fraud. Obviously, these aren't good things. It's new, too, so it will take some time for us to learn the limits of good taste and good judgement and for norms to develop.

sailfast 9y ago

You can still do this with your phone - these machine learning images are all controlled as a completely separate tab in the photo app. It's the consumer's choice to (easily) turn it off and on. In my own personal tests, I found that I could better capture totally backlit faces that would have made terrible photos with portrait mode and the outcomes were great. When your objective is to capture a fleeting moment in the best way possible, this is a great advance and I welcome it. If I want to shoot Sony Alpha SLR and edit the raws, I'll do that. But most of the time I just want to share what my family's doing with the rest of my family and this makes it really easy to do it well.

grandalf 9y ago
> separate tab in the photo app Where is this? Which OS? I believe the composition optimization is not something you can turn off. What's the difference between optimizing the landscape composition and modifying a composition of a face to make it look more friendly, or modifying a picture of arms to make them look more buff?